Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to advise him about a grant scheme for businesses affected by COVID-19. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to advise him his business may be eligible for an additional restrictions grant (ARG) for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. He believes he has missed out on the grant and suffered financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2020 the Government introduced various schemes for councils to pay grants to businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This included the local restrictions grant (LRG) and ARG schemes. The LRG scheme aimed to support businesses which were forced to close and the ARG scheme aimed to support businesses which were able to remain open but were severely impacted by restrictions brought in to help to curb transmission of the virus.
6. Mr X applied to the Council for a grant under the LRG scheme in late 2020. The Council says the application form made clear that in order to qualify a business must have been forced to close, and that the form included a declaration to this effect. But when it reviewed the application the Council says it was clear Mr X’s business had not been forced to closed and it therefore refused his application on 4 December 2020.
7. Mr X says he has recently become aware from a third party that his business may have been entitled to a grant under the ARG scheme. He wrote to the Council to ask about this but the Council told him the scheme had closed on 2 December 2020 and it could not reopen it or award him a grant. It informed him the next round of the scheme was due to open on 6 April 2021 and confirmed it had added his details to its mailing list so he would be notified as soon as it went live.
8. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response. He believes it should have informed him about the ARG scheme and says he was wrongly advised.

Assessment

9. Mr X says he sought advice and spoke to a third party about the ARG scheme and was told he was not eligible; as a result he decided not to apply. But we could not hold the Council responsible for the advice of a third party.
10. Eligibility for the ARG scheme depended on several criteria and we would not expect the Council to identify and write to all eligible businesses while the scheme was open. The Council confirms information about the various schemes available at the time was shown on its website and it was for business-owners such as Mr X to check the details of these schemes to see if they were eligible.
11. There is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application to the LRG scheme and when the Council made its decision to refuse Mr X’s application the ARG scheme had already closed. We would not therefore expect the Council to have advised him to apply to the scheme as it could not have considered his application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman